If that's the case, can you quote this illegal act in the rule book. Not trying to be a smart aleck, I just want someone to show me there's a rule against intentionally breaking the rules. And if so, then why doesn't it apply to intentional fouling.

Rule 10-1-5 )Technical Fouls) -- "A team shall not.... allow the game to develop into an actionless contest." The action you describe, if permitted will result in a contest that become actionless. Remember, the team shooting is not required to score. They have done nothing wrong. The team violating is trying to force a team into doing something that by rule they are not required to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Look Ma No Hands

Accepted practice? Fouling is breaking the rules. Its against the rules and there is a penalty for it.

Agreed. The penalties have increased over the years. Remember when there was no double bonus? The double bonus is a direct result of fouling at the end of the game. In addition, increased emphasis has been placed on intentional fouls, particularly in the waning moments of a game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Look Ma No Hands

And that's not always in the team's best interest. And the penalty of a FT violation is the team gets another chance to make the FT.

And again, they are not required to make the free throw. Your scenario forces them to score.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Look Ma No Hands

But it is not in the best interest of the team to shoot the FTs. They don't want to shoot the FTs. But they have to because the other team broke the rules. So when there's a FT violation, the other team gets to (has to) shoot the FT again. It shouldn't matter what the situation is.

Until the rule changes where under a team gets the option of shooting or retaining possession of the ball, this is what they have to deal with. At the same time, a team up 7 with 1:30 to play is going to try to make the attempts in order to increase their lead. If they are instructed to miss on purpose, the coach isn't going to be around long.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Look Ma No Hands

So its OK to make the other team shoot FTs at the end of the game by breaking the rules of fouling, but it is not OK to make the other team to shoot FTs at the end of the game because of a lane violation?

Yep. Again, with ample time remaining, missing the shots on purpose gives the opponent an opportunity. Missing the shots in the scenario you propose is not illegal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Look Ma No Hands

Breaking rules is breaking rules. There are penalties for breaking rules.

Agreed again. Forcing a team to score because another team is violating intentionally makes no sense from a rules standpoint or a common sens standpoint. They are violating to gain an advantage. Therefopre, they are not penalized for their illegal actions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Look Ma No Hands

The irony is you and I have had the discussion that there are coaches at the Division I level (and I gave you a name in an earlier private message) and at other levels that think it is wrong to tell young people to foul at the end of the game. They think it is a bad message to tell a young man to break the rules because it gives you a better chance to win. They don't think you should teach young people that the ends justifies the means. You don't believe those coaches exist. I know they do. I gave you a name. I can give you his phone number too. But those coaches are few. You might say that it is "accepted practice," but don't discount those who think there is a higher calling in the educational experience within the athletic experience.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't want to see intentional lane violations at the end of a game. On the contrary I really don't want to see kids intentionally breaking any rules at the end of a game. It bugs me that everyone is OK with the practice of breaking some of the rules, but only selected ones.

I'm done preaching for now.

Again, the penalties are such that more often than not, the team "breaking the rules" does not prevail.

"Accepted practice" is a term that comes right from the governing body that makes our rules. Wanna take a stab at the coach/administrator to official ratio is on the rules committee? (Answer: Overwhelmingly coaches/administrations. There are very few officials on the rules committee)

We don't make the rules, we just enforce them as they want us to enforce them.

I understand all that you are saying. But we have to be careful about statements like this one that I quoted (and many other statements in this discussion) because folks that are intentionally fouling are violating trying to gain an advantage as well.

I don't know if you were at the OHSAA Div I championship game, but how much discussion was there after that game about if Upper Arlington should have intentionally fouled to prevent St Eds from getting off a three to tie. In other words, UA should have broken the rules so St Eds could not have a chance to tie the game. Violating to gain an advantage.

I will look up the rule you quoted. I am not saying you are incorrect. I just want to read it in its entirety and in within the context it is written. I am sure there would be some discussion on the concept of "actionless game."

I understand all that you are saying. But we have to be careful about statements like this one that I quoted (and many other statements in this discussion) because folks that are intentionally fouling are violating trying to gain an advantage as well.

And here's the difference.....

They foul to stop the clock. The action of fouling is "legal" in the sense that it is permitted by rule. (as well as being an acceptable practice....at any level) The penalty for the foul is the offended team goes to the foul line and shoots free throws. They are put in an advantageous position.

By forcing a team to make their shot, (again, there is no rule for them to score) they are no longer in an advantageous position and thus are actually the team penalized for doing nothing wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Look Ma No Hands

I don't know if you were at the OHSAA Div I championship game, but how much discussion was there after that game about if Upper Arlington should have intentionally fouled to prevent St Eds from getting off a three to tie. In other words, UA should have broken the rules so St Eds could not have a chance to tie the game. Violating to gain an advantage.

Yes, I was there. That foul at that point of the game is also an accepted practice, however, that can backfire as a savvy player can pull up and attempt a field goal or the foul crosses the line of a common foul to an intentional foul causing the penalty to become free throws instead of the ball out of bounds. That exact scenario happened more than once in Ohio last year and happened a couple of times on the college level.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Look Ma No Hands

I will look up the rule you quoted. I am not saying you are incorrect. I just want to read it in its entirety and in within the context it is written.

That's fine........Call anyone you wish. I've been on the rules and instructional side of officiating for well over 30 years. This has been run up the flagpole in Indianapolis a number of times. While not specifically covered by rule, (the rule book would be 1,000's of pages long to cover all scenarios) this action has been deemed illegal and is to be penalized with a technical foul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Look Ma No Hands

I am sure there would be some discussion on the concept of "actionless game."

The actionless game in your scenario is one team intentionally misses and one team intentionally violates to make the team that missed, shoot again...and miss again, while they violate again to make the other team shoot again, and miss again......while they violate again to make the other team..... when does it end? actually the fight that will occur just might end the game

...and before anyone claims that holding the ball is actionless.... it's legal to hold the ball, as well as being legal to allow someone to hold the ball. The clock continues to run with an end to the game in sight.

Allsports, sounds like I have offended you. Not intended. I do appreciate you pointing out the "actionless" rule. I want to read the rule it in its entirety, not to show you wrong in its interpretation, but rather to further my knowledge on the matter.

I certainly understand your viewpoints as expressed, and that they indeed might be 100% accurate in their application.

I do hope you understand my position as well:
1) I do struggle with telling kids to intentionally violate any rules to gain advantage. I certainly realize it (intentionally fouling) is "accepted practice," but I am talking from an educational / ethical viewpoint. Ends > means. It's a philosophical position.

2) That I think it a bit hypocritical (not you, but the application of the rules) to actually elevate the strategical practice of violating rules (intentionally fouling) to gain an advantage, but to say intentionally violating other rules to gain an advantage warrants a technical.

3) That I will never win that battle.

If you recall, the whole intentional fouling for an advantage came under the microscope after Jim Valvano at NC State used it often at the end of games on the way to the national title. The NCAA didn't like it too much, and instituted "the Valvano Rule," which upset many coaches and it was rescinded. This rule eventually evolved to be instituted as today's "double bonus," instead of never-ending one-and-ones.

Allsports, sounds like I have offended you. Not intended. I do appreciate you pointing out the "actionless" rule. I want to read the rule it in its entirety, not to show you wrong in its interpretation, but rather to further my knowledge on the matter.

I certainly understand your viewpoints as expressed, and that they indeed might be 100% accurate in their application.

I do hope you understand my position as well:
1) I do struggle with telling kids to intentionally violate any rules to gain advantage. I certainly realize it (intentionally fouling) is "accepted practice," but I am talking from an educational / ethical viewpoint. Ends > means. It's a philosophical position.

2) That I think it a bit hypocritical (not you, but the application of the rules) to actually elevate the strategical practice of violating rules (intentionally fouling) to gain an advantage, but to say intentionally violating other rules to gain an advantage warrants a technical.

3) That I will never win that battle.

If you recall, the whole intentional fouling for an advantage came under the microscope after Jim Valvano at NC State used it often at the end of games on the way to the national title. The NCAA didn't like it too much, and instituted "the Valvano Rule," which upset many coaches and it was rescinded. This rule eventually evolved to be instituted as today's "double bonus," instead of never-ending one-and-ones.

No offense taken whatsoever. Over the years I've had things directed towards me that would cause even the most docile person to respond in a manner that would result in a prison sentence. it's part of the job.

We are however, spinning our wheels on this. From a basketball purist point of view, most points you raise are 100% valid. (except the violating to make a team do something that's not required to do ) My point of view is tied to the "why's and what for's" of the rule. If the rule were to change tomorrow, my first charge is to understand why the rule was changed and enforce it accordingly. That way when challenged, I can respond in a manner other than "that's the rule".

Somebody recently commented with the following question, and I do not know how to respond:

Quote:

I’d like to ask about another misunderstood rule, or lack(?) of rule.

In the official rules that I’ve found for NBA, college and high school, I have yet to find a clear and explicit one applying to the situation when a dribbler loses control without the ball contacting another player. In the NBA rules it is clearly stated that this constitutes the end of the dribble. But it does not say whether this player is allowed to pick up the ball again.

If the loss of control is perceived by the official as an errant pass, then it is also clear enough that the “passer” cannot be the first to touch the ball. But what if the player’s intent is to keep dribbling and he just loses it?

One of your examples is about fumbling. It is vaguely suggestive of the situation I’ve mentioned. But as I understand it, fumbling is distinct from losing control of a dribble, so I’m not sure if your description applies or not.

On another website the question has been answered in contradictory ways:

If you can, please provide a written rule from an official rule book (at any level) to help clarify. If the rules are different as between school levels and the NBA, that would also be good to know. Thanks.

a) The dribbler catches or causes the ball to come to rest in one or both
hands.
b) The dribbler palms/carries the ball by allowing it to come to rest in one or
both hands.
c) The dribbler simultaneously touches the ball with both hands.
d) The ball touches or is touched by an opponent and causes the dribbler to
lose control.
e) The ball becomes dead

It is an interrupted dribble when (Rule 4-15-5).....

An interrupted dribble occurs when the ball is loose after deflecting off the dribbler or after it momentarily gets away from the dribbler. There is no
player control during an interrupted dribble.

If an interrupted dribble occurs, the player may continue his dribble by pushing the ball to the floor again as he did prior to the event. He/she may also secure the ball which as listed above now ends the dribble

The NCAA Men's definition of when a dribble ends is very similar to the NFHS rule and the definition of an interrupted dribble is the same under both codes.

I apologize if this has already been covered but I've seen a number cases recently where an offensive player will initiate a one-on-one move towards the basket and the defensive player does a nice job by moving his feet and staying in front, all the way defending with his chest out and arms back, and then when the offensive player reaches the basket, his last move initiates contact with the defender and a foul is called on the defensive player.

My question is, if that is a foul, what should the defender do differently to avoid it?

I apologize if this has already been covered but I've seen a number cases recently where an offensive player will initiate a one-on-one move towards the basket and the defensive player does a nice job by moving his feet and staying in front, all the way defending with his chest out and arms back, and then when the offensive player reaches the basket, his last move initiates contact with the defender and a foul is called on the defensive player.

My question is, if that is a foul, what should the defender do differently to avoid it?

I'm assuming that the defender has established legal guarding position and has maintained it through out the move. If so, then what you describe is not a foul on the defender.

However, this is purely a judgement call. Remember, what you see may not be what the official sees.

this isn't a question, just an indication of whats going to happen....

based on the scrimmages i have done and the ones i have left to do....plan on some long games this season. the kids/coaches need to adapt to the hand check/arm bar rules that are no longer written as a POE, now are RULES.

i had a coach tell me the other day that if thats a hand check i better get a new pea for my whistle........i told him, that i use a pealess whistle so my whistle will never lose its power.

he also told me that his team is physical......i said as long as you don't use your arms or hands you will be ok.

My son spoke to the ref after his last scrimmage to get some clarification on the arm bar rule from a ref's POV. His take away was that the defensive players are going to take a lot of hits to the gut without the arm bar "protection." What was the reason for the change?

My son spoke to the ref after his last scrimmage to get some clarification on the arm bar rule from a ref's POV. His take away was that the defensive players are going to take a lot of hits to the gut without the arm bar "protection." What was the reason for the change?

The arm bar has always been illegal.

The actual rule change this year regarding hand checking is because after years of this being a point of emphasis, officials have let it get out of hand across the country leading to an increased amount of rough play.

I was at a scrimmage today and a violation was called twice on a foul shot because a post player moved backwards before the ball was released. I thought it was a violation if they entered the lane, not moving backwards. Is this the correct call?

so, if i drive the lane and shoot a floater, release the ball then fall into the defender? the signal for foul would be charge/player control. the basket is no good?

another thing i was told.....a dribbler drives to the basket, and a defender in help turns hes body and doesn't take the driver on face to face but the dribbler completely runs into a stationary defender's side.......this can't be a charge b/c the sideways defender wasn't in a legal guarding position?

so, if i drive the lane and shoot a floater, release the ball then fall into the defender? the signal for foul would be charge/player control. the basket is no good?

That is correct..... Prior to 1983, whether or not you counted the goal depended upon the timing of the contact. Airborne and contact before the release was a player control foul, no basket. Airborne and contact after the release, count the basket, followed by shots at the other end for the foul. That went by the wayside as the games were getting bogged down into a parade from one end of the floor to the other to shoot free-throws.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtk

another thing i was told.....a dribbler drives to the basket, and a defender in help turns hes body and doesn't take the driver on face to face but the dribbler completely runs into a stationary defender's side.......this can't be a charge b/c the sideways defender wasn't in a legal guarding position?

thanks for help...

jtk
()

Whether or not this is a foul on the help defender depends on what occurred prior to his/her turn of the body.

To establish legal guarding position, a defender must have both feet touching the playing court (in bounds) and the front of the torso of the defender must be facing his opponent.

Once that is established, the defender may have one or both feet touching the floor (again, must be in bounds) or he may be airborne. The restriction for facing the opponent ceases to exist after the initial position is legally obtained. (and maintained)

Your scenario is what is referred to in officiating circles as a HTBT call... (had to be there). We are taught to officiate the defense in order to correctly see the whole play.... If the help defender established LGP, and then turned without extending any part of his body into the path of the dribbler, then a player control foul has occurred.

This is kind of an off-the-wall question.
My stepson came home from a HS game the other day and said the player on the opposing team finished the game with no jersey on. No shirt. Nothing.
I asked him repeatedly and he stuck by his story.

Is this possible or legal? I am assuming he got blood on his top. Happened before when I played and some other player just had to relinquish his top for the rest of the game.

I know that there was a rule stating a player/# had to match to what was turned in before the game....is this what possibly happened and he did not wear his top at the end of the game?

Again, I am not 100% certain it actually happened but I asked many times and he swore it was true.

This is kind of an off-the-wall question.
My stepson came home from a HS game the other day and said the player on the opposing team finished the game with no jersey on. No shirt. Nothing.
I asked him repeatedly and he stuck by his story.

Is this possible or legal? I am assuming he got blood on his top. Happened before when I played and some other player just had to relinquish his top for the rest of the game.

I know that there was a rule stating a player/# had to match to what was turned in before the game....is this what possibly happened and he did not wear his top at the end of the game?

Again, I am not 100% certain it actually happened but I asked many times and he swore it was true.

What say you?

Learned long ago that "never" is a word that rarely means never..... With that, IF all means to get the player in another jersey, (either a teammate or from the JV squad) warm-up, or t-shirt of the same color as the one rendered unusable are unsuccessful, we should allow the player to compete if it does not present any potential problems. (mainly identification issues for the players and the officials)

I had an instance years back where blood soaked a uniform to the point that it could not be cleaned. The player involved was a big ole' hoss and none of his teammates or sub-varsity mates could help him..... He ended up in an away jersey supplied by the home team. (they happened to be of similar school colors)

Learned long ago that "never" is a word that rarely means never..... With that, IF all means to get the player in another jersey, (either a teammate or from the JV squad) warm-up, or t-shirt of the same color as the one rendered unusable are unsuccessful, we should allow the player to compete if it does not present any potential problems. (mainly identification issues for the players and the officials)

I had an instance years back where blood soaked a uniform to the point that it could not be cleaned. The player involved was a big ole' hoss and none of his teammates or sub-varsity mates could help him..... He ended up in an away jersey supplied by the home team. (they happened to be of similar school colors)

Gotcha. So it would be allowed. I have never seen or heard of it before mostly because of the amount of options available. I wonder if that was the case or, and dont laugh, if the coach didnt want to make a player feel bad by taking his uniform!

It should be allowed.... That's not to say a crew out there somehow loses sight of the intent of the rule and refuses to let the player play.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thavoice

I have never seen or heard of it before mostly because of the amount of options available. I wonder if that was the case or, and dont laugh, if the coach didnt want to make a player feel bad by taking his uniform!

Like you said, there are many, many options available to keep the player in the game. However, hurt feelings are not among the reasons to not give up a jersey.......

It should be allowed.... That's not to say a crew out there somehow loses sight of the intent of the rule and refuses to let the player play.

Like you said, there are many, many options available to keep the player in the game. However, hurt feelings are not among the reasons to not give up a jersey.......

Save that for the prima donnas with 7 figure W-2's........

I just mentioned the hurt feelz because of something that happened many, many moons ago. 3 of us Frosh dressed for JV games just so they would have a full roster of I think 15. We would rarely get in, just at the very end if they at first used the scrubs on the actual JV team. One time the best jv player got popped in the nose by an elbow and had to use a buddy of mines jersey for the last qtr or so. After the game we were at his parents house and the mom thought it was disgraceful. The dad, and us 3 players, all laughed at her about it! His answer was "well it meant I wouldnt get in with like 30 seconds left like we did earlier in the season">

Looking for some help on the rules for post defense once the offense receives the ball. How much contact is allowable (thinking about the arm bar), and other contact by the defense.

What are refs looking for when the offensive player starts to back down and is displacing the defender. (thinking of NBA type moves that the high school kids emulate).

I still see a lot of Arm bars stuck to the back of post players. But, I do not see how you can guard in the post effectively without allowing some contact during these back down/displacement plays. I assume the new hand check rules also applies in the post.

Looking for some help on the rules for post defense once the offense receives the ball. How much contact is allowable (thinking about the arm bar), and other contact by the defense.

What are refs looking for when the offensive player starts to back down and is displacing the defender. (thinking of NBA type moves that the high school kids emulate).

I still see a lot of Arm bars stuck to the back of post players. But, I do not see how you can guard in the post effectively without allowing some contact during these back down/displacement plays. I assume the new hand check rules also applies in the post.

Thank you..

It's not a matter of "how much contact" necessarily. Not all contact is a foul, but the four specific acts from the new rule (two hands, extended arm bar, placing and keeping, more than one touch) are ILLEGAL on ANY player with the ball, no matter if they create any advantage/disadvantage. They are supposed to be called with no strings attached. Judgment is not required to make these calls so much as recognition.

With regards to backing down and displacing, we look for a defender who has established and maintained a legal guarding position and has not violated the principle of verticality. We look for illegal acts from the ball handler such as displacing with the rear end, using the elbow/hand to clear space, and hooking the defender.